I know that we've dissected Barton to death here, but I just ran across a new Barton video in which he is quite mild and even-handed in his presentation. Now, you still see him repeat a couple of myths like, "Congress published a Bible" and "29 signers had seminary degrees." However, I must admit that I was surprised by what I saw in this video. Check it out and let us know what you think.
10 comments:
Barton did it again! He invoked J. Adams invoking Mayhew, Chauncy, Cooper and Whitefield. 4/5 were unitarians. He's proving the unitarian Christian Nation thesis. On Calvin's 500th Birthday this is Michael Servetus' revenge.
I have not commented much on Barton because I have not read much of what he has written. I have read other things from David Noebel and Stephen Mc Dowell(who was referenced in Jon's post from today) who are of the same ilk.
Upon listening to the crux of his case I think he is right and wrong:
Right that there were many others beside Jefferson, Washington, and Madison..... that were Evangelical Christians and had a great deal of influence. These people tend to be ignored in modern discussions.
Wrong in that he mentions these people in the same breath as George Washington and Madison who were more than likely not typical Evangelical Christians.
The slippery (churchy) way he does it is what really bothers me. His evidence that our Founding was evangelical is statements that some in influence made about Jesus by name and about being their Savior and being saved by grace and all. He ignores that Washington and others never or almost never come close to that type of language. By going in almost mid sentence from John Witherspoon (or whoever he was talking about) and Washington with out any explanation of the nuances needed to get to the truth of this subject is bad.
Real bad! The sad thing is that the secularist crowd does that same exact thing on the other side. They both do it and get mad at each other. One thing that commenting on Ed Brayton's blog has taught me is:
The people who most resemble Evangelical Right Wing Christians in arrogance, dogma, and blind spots(cognitive dissonance is what Ed calls it) is the very people of the secular left that hate them. I it hard to have a truth seeking discussion with either group because they are so right they are wrong most of the time.
Ooh, yes! Thanks for pointing that one out, Jon! I wonder what Barton is using for evidence to suggest that Mayhew, Chauncy, etc. were orthodox Christians? Perhaps he has no evidence but is simply using them to say, "Hey, look. There were some religious figures who played a role in the American Revolution...and John Adams agrees."
I would be interested in knowing if Barton tried to argue against their unitarian leanings at all.
--------------------
But overall, don't you think this was a much milder David Barton?
I don't think Barton is claiming Adams, Mayhew, Chauncy and Cooper to be "orthodox Christians." Though he did mistakenly claim Mayhew as a "Great Awakening" figure in an earlier article. He's claiming them to be "Christians" and not addressing the issue of what is "Christianity."
I oft-disagree with both Tom AND Kristo but at least they address the Trinity issue as it relates to "Christianity." I'd like to see Barton and his mega-church evangelical followers do the same. It would be interesting to see how they come down -- on Tom's or Kristo's side where they find a place within the "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" heritage for anti-Trinitarianism (they also sometimes invoke the term "Judeo-Christian" but never define it). OR on Dr. Frazer's side when he asserts, it you don't believe in the Trinity you aren't a "Christian" but something else. Remember these are the folks who can be downright nasty when dealing with non-Trinitarians like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other groups that they term "non-Christian cults."
True the Mormons and JWs have a socially/religiously conservative worldview; but I'd like to see every single theologian who has termed them a "non-Christian cult," do the same with the FFs.
Jon stated:
"He's claiming them to be "Christians" and not addressing the issue of what is "Christianity." "
That is what I was trying to say. You put it much better than I did. It is obvious what he is doing and does it on purpose. He is mobilizing people for his cause more than anything to do with historical inquiry.
I debated guys like this for years on many things and most are full of crap. It is why I no longer associate myself with it all.
I believe in the trinity(or at least still do as I evaluate all the crap I was taught in the cultish church I was in) but by no means think that lack of this belief makes someone not a Christian.
Barton's circle is definitely trinitarian for sure. I agree with you that they get there cake and want to eat it too on some of this. Go look at the statement of faith of his church or the majority he speaks at. These people most certainly would call unitarians heretics.
Frazer is wrong about a lot in my view but certainly consistent. Calvinism has never been my thing but I used to agree with Frazer and Mac Arthur. I still think they have some good points. I certainly like that they are against the religious right and their garbage.
True the Mormons and JWs have a socially/religiously conservative worldview; but I'd like to see every single theologian who has termed them a "non-Christian cult," do the same with the FFs...
True dat, Jon. Go forth into battle with it. It's an excellent point, although the "Founding Fathers" included a lot more people than Jefferson and John Adams.
But it would be cool to remind them that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson adamantly disbelieved Jesus was the second person or the Holy Trinity, or that there was a Holy Trinity atall. Jonathan Mayhew too, and John Marshall and Joseph Story. And Julia Ward Howe, who wrote the words to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."
I'm all for the separation of church and state. But when you drag Gregg Frazer and his thesis into socio-historical battles, you're mixing his church with my state.
In the meantime:
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Since God is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.
I cease to hear whenever there is a "sacred/secular" distinction. I am not interested in the religious debate.
As with just about every other debate, much comes down to terminology. Barton defines "Christian" in a very broad sense, when making claims that the Founders were "Christian" and founded a "Christian nation." And then he narrows the definition to evangelical Trinitarianism when speaking from the Bible in churches. That's the game he plays. Is he being dishonest?
I have a feeling that we could interview him (and I did email Wallbuilders requesting such), he would acknowledge the distinctions.
Post a Comment